2016 Postmortem

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)

30. If you opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion, you supported Saddam

Reply to hellofromreddit (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:20 PM

May 2016

Same basic idea.

Unfortunately, the people who sound the alarm when a politician is in the pocket of Wall Street tend to be more nuanced in their thinking and thus are more likely to respond defensively when their legitimate concerns are branded as right-wing smears.

What we should be saying is, "Bull shit. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

But alas, that's not how most of us who oppose warmongering Wall Street suckups work. That's also one of the reasons (aside from the obvious) that left-wing radio hasn't succeeded.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is concern over Clinton's wall street ties not a legitimate issue? [View all] hellofromreddit May 2016 OP

Every time something has been said involving Wall Street and HRC or election fraud or bkkyosemite May 2016 #1

It absolutely is! TDale313 May 2016 #2

That's right Arneoker May 2016 #91

Even Bernie in the last debate couldn't come up with one instance of corruption redstateblues May 2016 #3

OK, Bernie looked foolish. So what's your point with that observation? hellofromreddit May 2016 #6

I suspect he was biting his tongue Armstead May 2016 #13

This is exactly what happened...Trump will not be so hesitant to dish on Hillary... Human101948 May 2016 #32

Well gee, THAT'S never happened before! Arneoker May 2016 #92

Trump will inflate Hillary's negatives until her ratings are equal to his... Human101948 May 2016 #100

I agree. He's been trying to keep his campaign clean, and of course he gets no credit for it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #39

He had nothing. That had been the centerpiece of his campaign redstateblues May 2016 #31

The centerpiece of his campaign? That is obviously not true. hellofromreddit May 2016 #38

Corruption not the centerpiece? He hammers it in every speech. redstateblues May 2016 #58

Income inequality. hellofromreddit May 2016 #60

People who have contempt for the very idea of economic justice wouldn't understand. delrem May 2016 #83

Gee, I never know I had contempt for the very idea of economic justice! Arneoker May 2016 #93

271 posts and you already figure I'm singling you out? delrem May 2016 #104

That was a sly response from Hillary. KPN May 2016 #34

We won't know what the payoffs are until she's in a position to pay them off. Peace Patriot May 2016 #67

And it is all legal so we had better like it. kpola12 May 2016 #103

Scalia would be very proud of you pmorlan1 May 2016 #72

He was shocked .99center May 2016 #82

The voters have heard this for months from Bernie himself, no evidence of BootinUp May 2016 #4

the "cut it out, Glass-Steagall wasnt the problem" reform? reddread May 2016 #7

Read it yourself. nt BootinUp May 2016 #10

sorry, lost me at "Hillary believes" reddread May 2016 #15

Perhaps there are more open minded folks that will read it. nt BootinUp May 2016 #18

you mean suckers reddread May 2016 #19

We are going to have 8 years to argue about this. nt BootinUp May 2016 #21

that wish wont be coming true reddread May 2016 #23

I read it.... Armstead May 2016 #43

That seems like a bit of a stretch. hellofromreddit May 2016 #9

If this is a "Bernie is the stronger GE candidate" argument BootinUp May 2016 #11

That seems fair. Thanks. hellofromreddit May 2016 #17

Silly. KPN May 2016 #36

What's the record, what's the record, what's the record Arneoker May 2016 #95

can't get much tougher than proposing to break up the banking monopolies Armstead May 2016 #40

And Clinton has said she would based on risk to the economy, but the BootinUp May 2016 #46

It's not just risks to the economy.... Armstead May 2016 #47

Agreed, and that is also addressed in her platform BootinUp May 2016 #48

Hers lacks the necessary framework... Armstead May 2016 #49

That kind of rhetoric doesn't win the WH. But the policies to address the problem BootinUp May 2016 #51

We'll have to disagree -- I think that kind of rhetoric can win the WH and Congress Armstead May 2016 #54

You are siding with the majority pmorlan1 May 2016 #68

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense at all BootinUp May 2016 #69

Makes Perfect Sense pmorlan1 May 2016 #70

Knock yourself out then. nt BootinUp May 2016 #71

Bottom line, what does her record show? Arneoker May 2016 #94

I'm sure Trump has the transcripts to her speech to Wall Street. October Surprise? B Calm May 2016 #5

Go to any large company beedle May 2016 #8

Yeah, even when I was at the bottom of the totem pole I had to sit through training about it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #26

So you were warped by corporate group think. Buzz cook May 2016 #56

Your attack is weak. I mopped floors. hellofromreddit May 2016 #59

And yet you still reject evidence. Buzz cook May 2016 #64

It's not about 'evidence' of a crime beedle May 2016 #73

Yup that's another republican talking point Buzz cook May 2016 #80

Protip: you can make that point without the insults and lying. hellofromreddit May 2016 #84

Sorry Buzz cook May 2016 #99

Yes, and integrity obviously does not come into play in your calculation beedle May 2016 #98

Integrity does come into play Buzz cook May 2016 #102

because it's inconvenient? Armstead May 2016 #12

There should be a transaction tax on the financial services industry. PufPuf23 May 2016 #14

Pay me $200,000 dollars for a speech JEB May 2016 #16

Because it might make her look kinda neoCon Ferd Berfel May 2016 #20

As the Senator from New York, you want her to dismiss a huge part of her constituents? procon May 2016 #22

Make your argument without the insults. hellofromreddit May 2016 #25

Defend your allegations with something more substantial than opinions. nt procon May 2016 #37

Whatever you came here to achieve you've failed. hellofromreddit May 2016 #41

An ex-Gov of NY, FDR, enacted Glass-Steagall, which Hillary opposes TheDormouse May 2016 #35

Hogwash. procon May 2016 #50

Explain why Hillary doesn't say TheDormouse May 2016 #62

I'm not her archivist, a soothsayer, or a reader of tea leaves, but opinions, I got 'em. procon May 2016 #79

take your time ... TheDormouse May 2016 #75

Here's that ex-Govenor of NY talking about Wall St TheDormouse May 2016 #65

Because - All Things Hillary - have been exaggerated Bobbie Jo May 2016 #24

Well, that is a pretty good point. hellofromreddit May 2016 #33

I have something to say that is liberal and pro Democrat, but as this is Democratic Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #27

Would you say it in a PM? hellofromreddit May 2016 #28

No point in a PM. I was hoping to use Democratic Underground to promote the idea Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #29

If you opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion, you supported Saddam RufusTFirefly May 2016 #30

As you can see, it is virtually unexplainable without just poo-pawing the questioner ... KPN May 2016 #42

it's scary what she gets away with. Joob May 2016 #44

The transcript issue is not petty. It's reflective of her fiscal policy going forward and leadership EndElectoral May 2016 #45

Clinton's rewired the party into becoming one big protection mechanism for her MisterP May 2016 #52

Apparently there is also little concern that the Democratic National Convention is being bjo59 May 2016 #53

"To me it seems apparent" Buzz cook May 2016 #55

You didn't make your point. You just tossed out a few lame insults. hellofromreddit May 2016 #61

Bullshit nt Buzz cook May 2016 #63

The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #66

And perceptions can be and are Buzz cook May 2016 #81

Some of our best Presidents had connections to wall Street and were weak hy, FDR, JFK, Hoyt May 2016 #57

I don't believe that the speech transcripts thing is petty at all Time for change May 2016 #74

IOKIYHRC? Beartracks May 2016 #76

Yeap, her camp stole SBS data from 11 states.... she cheated !! Oh wait uponit7771 May 2016 #77

To criticize Hillary Clinton is to criticize the Democratic Party. She is our "queen", you know. w4rma May 2016 #78

It is a legitimate issue, but if you hear the love fest for yourself you might choose Bernie. Vinca May 2016 #85

Every candidate has "ties to Wall Street". randome May 2016 #86

Not all candidates are paid big money to talk to them. October Surprise B Calm May 2016 #87

"What you really mean is how can use this issue against Clinton. Right?" hellofromreddit May 2016 #88

I made it: every candidate has some degree of a "tie to Wall Street". randome May 2016 #89

Nobody can prove a negative. hellofromreddit May 2016 #90

You're right, you can't prove a negative. Clinton's fees & contributions are well known, though. randome May 2016 #96

I'm not sure where you're going with this hellofromreddit May 2016 #97

Asking is legit. Unfounded blanket statements about corruption aren't. CrowCityDem May 2016 #101